Macbeth and Banquo – Praneeth Lakshman, The Tiffin School

Macbeth and Banquo, first and foremost, are loyal to each other and have very high levels of mutual respect. This is seen by the address of both characters to each other, with Macbeth referring to Banquo as ‘sir’ in 3:1 and his ‘chief guest’ – the title ‘sir’ being bestowed upon Banquo shows the level of respect that Macbeth has for him (refusing instead to call him ‘sirrah’, which is what he calls all those socially inferior to him), and the adjective ‘chief’ indicates a very high level of priority. Banquo, in return, refers to Macbeth as ‘highness’ and ‘my lord’, which are typical of a servant’s vernacular in dialogue with their king. This language, although possibly a product of courteous exchange, signifies the honour that both characters have towards each other, and indicates the bond they once used to share, fighting side by side at the battlefield. 

Macbeth and Banquo, at the very start of the play, are represented as one and the same, two sides of the same coin, who share a brotherhood that is simultaneously admirable and deadly. In fact, in 1:2, the characters are described in symbiotic pairs; their relationship akin to ‘sparrows [and] eagles’, and ‘the hare [and] the lion’, and their effect on the battle was similar to ‘cannons overcharged with double cracks, [who] doubly redoubled strokes upon the foe’. The use of two complementing animals, the ‘eagle’ with its sharp eye and the ‘sparrow’ with its agility, or the might of the ‘lion’ combined with the speed of the ‘hare’, signifies how Banquo and Macbeth are an irreducible entity when it comes to fighting on the battlefield – this feat must require immense trust, immense connection, and immense friendship between the two characters. Most of all, their performance in the battle itself highlights their loyalty to King Duncan and serves to show the nature of their roles as thanes.

This loyalty, it seems, gives them the power and the honour to win against their opponents; a view propagated in the 16th century (when the play was written) including the idea of a great chain of being. This great chain of being dictated that God was supreme, then angels, and then the King; all of mankind had to be subservient to the King, and this would satisfy their role in nature by obeying the great chain of being. Thus, it can be deduced that Macbeth and Banquo, a similar and often blurred entity, are successful because of their compliance with nature and God. However, it remains to be seen what happens when this is not the case. 

Macbeth and Banquo’s once symbiotic relationship is a mere echo in the extract given, a far cry from the brotherhood they once shared at the start of the play. The seed of doubt is planted at the start of the extract, with Banquo remarking that he ‘fear[s] that [Macbeth] played’st most foully for’t’, with ‘it’ referring to the throne. The verb ‘fear’ indicates a sense of worry from Banquo that Macbeth has strayed from the path of good, and that he broke the great chain of being and thus God’s rules, and this is remarked to be ‘foully’ done; with the adverb connoting the transgression that Macbeth may have committed. The audience is aware of Macbeth’s fall, his murder of Duncan, his lust for power that now controls nature and its machinations around him, rather than him finding strength within the system. This exemplifies the difference between both characters; they both received prophecies that were laden with greatness, yet Banquo finds solace in letting nature take its course. Macbeth’s greed for power does not let him be as lax as his counterpart, and he forces his will, his desire to be king, unto nature itself. This is shown later in the play to have disastrous consequences, with him receiving little to no rest due to disturbed sleep, and in 3:4 Banquo returns as a ghost to haunt his consciousness. Haunting his consciousness, not only because of the weight of the first murder by Macbeth as king, but also as a reminder of what Macbeth should have been like – a loyal thane to his king, never seeking to usurp the great chain of being and serve to his nature. This is what troubles Macbeth the most; the realisation that Banquo and Macbeth, once synonyms, now their own antithesis, should have led the same path in lives – yet Macbeth’s greed has now caused him to kill this loyal, subservient part of himself that Banquo exemplifies. It serves as a symbol of the morality that Macbeth could have possessed, and his cold murder of Banquo signifies his final step in his transformation as a ruthless tyrant, where the honour and valour he once displayed with modest pride are now in their grave, just like his friend. This is a tragedy for both characters, and it is the testament of their relationship, as explored by Shakespeare.